Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-20-2019, 08:57 PM - 2 Likes   #796
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,876
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
My daughter never asked about her photographersí gear. I was shocked when a 26 year old woman and a 23 year old man showed up with little tiny Canon bodies and no L lenses, but it was her deal and my wife wrote all the checks, so I was copacetic with it.

Everything formal turned out OK but the candids were iffy. They just didnít have enough experience to get them right.

AFA big heavy cameras, some people buy for instance a K-1 for a specific purpose, such as intentionally to use old FF manual lenses on the original format. The size and weight are an issue, sure, but as Norm says, everything is a compromise.

I tolerate the weight when I want to use my K lenses. I imagine there is a valid use case for pro shooters, just as there is a valid APSc use case. On a KP I tolerate cramped hands when I want to shoot 1/60 @6400 ISO indoors and get clean jpegs. I just donít understand the little camera fetish.

Itís all choices. Nothing is perfect. Ever. (Well, K-1 comes close).
If a camera is going to offer lots of dedicated controls for various settings, modes, etc., then the body needs to be big enough to easily access those controls without confusion. The physical size of the human hand (and natural variation there-of) pretty much make cameras the size of the K-1, and pro Canikons just about optimal for many people with normal to large hands.

I used to carry an OM-4TI which was nice and light but the K-1 is better. I've gotten quite used to hand-carrying the K-1 for an entire day's hike or city-ramble. Sure, somewhat lighter might be nice, but not that the expensive of either functionality (the very nice array of decent-sized buttons and dials) or robustness (a good solid body).


Last edited by photoptimist; 01-20-2019 at 09:37 PM.
01-20-2019, 09:12 PM - 2 Likes   #797
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,440
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
First, congratulations on raising a sensible daughter!
Thank you.

A few more comments, repeating what I said last week, just after the ceremony:

The "pro" was using a Nikon camera - I believe it was a FF body, but the only thing I know for certain is that she was using a 85mm lens {I asked}, which required her to go back, back down the aisle for each increase in size of the group being photographed - and I helped her remove four chairs in the front row so they wouldn't be in the way of the "entire party" and "entire family" photos. Not how I would have done it, but she was doing it, and neither the bride nor the groom saw anything unusual about this.

The "pro" had each pair down the aisle stop at a particular point {where 'light is best'} for a couple of photos - no need for instant perfect focus, and she had the opportunity to take more photos if she didn't like what she saw on her replay. Again, nobody seemed to think this was odd or unusual.

I used TAv {1/125, f/5.6} for the photos I took during the ceremony {yes, I had pre-placed my KP at my seat a few minutes before the processing began}, which called for ISO 12800. She had a flash on her camera, but I was never aware of its going off. The bridal couple returned from Wisconsin a couple hours ago {they consulted with me about routing since we've had some unpleasant weather the past few days}, so they haven't seen any photos from her.

My major point in this is that she seemed to be taking a conservative course - not gambling on anything such as AF.C or lighting - and her actions didn't annoy her perfectly normal clients. Even though she was using Nikon, she wasn't depending on any of the features that we are told an events photographer must have - but I don't know how many true Bridezillas are out there who demand seemless photography.
01-20-2019, 09:24 PM - 3 Likes   #798
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,440
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
If a camera is going to offer lots of dedicated controls for various settings, modes, etc., then the body needs to be big enough to easily access those controls without confusion. The physical size of the human (and natural variation there-of) pretty much make cameras the size of the K-1, and pro Canikons just about optimal for many people with normal to large hands.
I had always thought my hands were "normal" size, but KP with smallest grip feels 'just right' to me. Oh well.

I understand the controls on my KP are similar to those on the K-1 {it doesn't have top LCD, but I don't miss what I've never had}. Once I got past my first day, the only confusion I've had is repeatedly putting it in video mode when I was intending for LV mode - otherwise, operating three e-dials has been very natural
01-20-2019, 09:40 PM - 3 Likes   #799
SMC PENTAX LENSES
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,401
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I had always thought my hands were "normal" size, but KP with smallest grip feels 'just right' to me. Oh well.

I understand the controls on my KP are similar to those on the K-1 {it doesn't have top LCD, but I don't miss what I've never had}. Once I got past my first day, the only confusion I've had is repeatedly putting it in video mode when I was intending for LV mode - otherwise, operating three e-dials has been very natural
It’s a really nice camera. I can switch back and forth between KP and K-1 without muscle memory miscues just by the different feel from the grips. I use the medium grip on the KP. The large grip actually feels awkward. Just used it indoors this afternoon @ ISO 6400 1/60 for grandchildren snaps. The Accelerator produced decently clean JPEG’s and while not a 7D I get decent frame rates when I take my thumb off the AF back button (3-shot bursts).

01-21-2019, 04:00 AM - 2 Likes   #800
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,121
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
If a camera is going to offer lots of dedicated controls for various settings, modes, etc., then the body needs to be big enough to easily access those controls without confusion. The physical size of the human hand (and natural variation there-of) pretty much make cameras the size of the K-1, and pro Canikons just about optimal for many people with normal to large hands.

I used to carry an OM-4TI which was nice and light but the K-1 is better. I've gotten quite used to hand-carrying the K-1 for an entire day's hike or city-ramble. Sure, somewhat lighter might be nice, but not that the expensive of either functionality (the very nice array of decent-sized buttons and dials) or robustness (a good solid body).
I think ergonomics from a professional standpoint includes a couple of different things. First of all, of course, is simply the comfortability of shooting a piece of gear for several hours. Here, many smaller cameras aren't comfortable and certainly smart phones aren't. The second is what you mention here, which is the ability to change settings quickly and without removing your eye from the viewfinder. This is something where the K-1 really accels and I assume the KP does too. You just don't have to go into menus to switch your iso/aperture/shutter speed, but furthermore, it is very easy to access functions like pixel shift, bracketing and many other things without menu diving.

There are many features on cameras that don't ever get used because they are hidden in some inner menu that most users don't get to. Pentax is different and I like that.
01-21-2019, 05:48 AM - 2 Likes   #801
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 719
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
This seems entirely false on a very deep level.

There's clearly a subset of customers that trend the opposite way. They think bigger bodies are better, bigger lenses are better, and bigger bags are better.

Does Mr Showoff pick the light little travel camera with it's superzoom or buy a giant beast, multi-kilogram birding lens, and huge carbon fiber tripod with gimbal? With today's high-performance sensors and lenses, small equipment works amazingly well at getting the shot. But that's not the reason Mr Showoff bought a camera. He bought a big cameras and big lenses because they scream $$$$$.

Does bridezilla pick the photographer with the dainty MILC, one small zoom, and a tiny bag or does she pick the photographer with the big honking DSLR or MF body and a foot locker-size Halliburton case of big primes, big strobes, big softboxes etc.?

And even if these folks are a minority, they end up defining what non-photographers think is a "serious" camera and influencing what non-photographers by when they decide to become photographers.
I hope that ostentatious rich guys and bridezillas aren't going to make reasonably sized and priced cameras extinct. I think the subset of people who want a "dainty" camera they can afford and comfortably carry to photograph kids and trips and life vastly, overwhelmingly outweighs the number of people who think they're impressing someone with the camera equivalent of a Lamborghini.

Just look at the poll on this site asking which roadmapped Pentax gear you want. There were only two APS-C options, and they lapped the field because they're reasonably priced and sized and give you image quality that in most cases is indistinguishable from gear three times as expensive and large.
01-21-2019, 07:59 AM - 1 Like   #802
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,945
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
The light is ultimately gathered by the sensor, not by the lens.
The sensor records the light gathered by the lens.

To reduce it to a simple scenario, consider two lenses which are identical except for a t-stop (let's say one of them does not use coated lens elements). The lens with the higher t-stop will supply the sensor with less light. Less simple, but similar in principle, is the idea of comparing two lenses which are the same except that one of them has a lower f-stop wide open. The latter lens will gather more light then the "slower" but otherwise identical lens.

So sensors can only record what the lens has gathered and all modern sensors do a very good job; back-illuminated sensors can reach a quantum efficiency greater than 90% (colour filters not considered).

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
A f/1.7 K-mount lens will perform roughly the same on my Q-7 as does my f/1.9 Q-mount lens, even though it is much larger.
In one sense, it will perform "roughly the same" (e.g., regarding photons per mm^2), in many other ways it will not perform the same (not even roughly). But that's a topic for a different time.
01-21-2019, 08:32 AM - 2 Likes   #803
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,876
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I hope that ostentatious rich guys and bridezillas aren't going to make reasonably sized and priced cameras extinct. I think the subset of people who want a "dainty" camera they can afford and comfortably carry to photograph kids and trips and life vastly, overwhelmingly outweighs the number of people who think they're impressing someone with the camera equivalent of a Lamborghini.

Just look at the poll on this site asking which roadmapped Pentax gear you want. There were only two APS-C options, and they lapped the field because they're reasonably priced and sized and give you image quality that in most cases is indistinguishable from gear three times as expensive and large.
Agreed! My original comment only refuted the idea that big cameras would go extinct. That logic was not meant to argue that small cameras would go extinct. That said, "advanced" and "pro" model cameras will be bigger than entry-level models both for ergonomic and prestige reasons.

Overall, too many people look at trends or their own preferences and then over-extrapolate in declaring that certain designs must dominate and all other designs must go extinct. Personally, I think big and small cameras will coexist as will both DSLR and MILCs along with a range of sensor sizes. The smallest and the largest camera designs will be niche models and systems. Statistics, physics, ergonomics, and economics would seem to imply that most cameras will be medium sized and moderately priced.

Looking longer term, I'm also wondering what will happen when the Chinese start building ILCs. My amateur reading of the Japanese culture is that it loves miniaturization and that drives the development of smaller cameras. In contrast, the Chinese culture seems less focused on small products and more focused on prestige.

01-21-2019, 09:05 AM - 2 Likes   #804
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,440
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The sensor records the light gathered by the lens.

To reduce it to a simple scenario, consider two lenses which are identical except for a t-stop (let's say one of them does not use coated lens elements). The lens with the higher t-stop will supply the sensor with less light. Less simple, but similar in principle, is the idea of comparing two lenses which are the same except that one of them has a lower f-stop wide open. The latter lens will gather more light then the "slower" but otherwise identical lens.

So sensors can only record what the lens has gathered and all modern sensors do a very good job; back-illuminated sensors can reach a quantum efficiency greater than 90% (colour filters not considered).
I was responding to comments about sensor size. My light meter asks for f-stop, plus ASA, to determine shutter speed; even when this light meter was constructed, exposure depended on the three "triangle" components, not on whether I was using medium format, 35mm, or even Minox film. To the degree of accuracy involved in setting values on a light meter, then copying a shutter speed to the camera, any lens (*) set to f/2 will result in the same shutter speed at a given ISO value and ambient light, regardless of whether I am using that lens on my KP or on my Q-7; the Q-7 sensor will receive 1/9-th as much total light, but that is exactly the amount of light it needs to record the photo. At a given ISO value and light condition, every lens (*) set at f/4 will provide the same image on my Q-7. The 'issue' is with the sensor, not the lens; that is my point.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
In one sense, it will perform "roughly the same" (e.g., regarding photons per mm^2), in many other ways it will not perform the same (not even roughly). But that's a topic for a different time.
Yes, that was my point. How an image is rendered depends largely on characteristics of the lens, but exposure depends on lens setting {not lens identity} and the sensor.


(*) assuming light from lens fully covers entire sensor.
Attached Images
 
01-21-2019, 11:38 AM - 2 Likes   #805
Pentaxian
kooks's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Josť, Costa Rica
Photos: Albums
Posts: 793
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
That said, "advanced" and "pro" model cameras will be bigger than entry-level models both for ergonomic and prestige reasons.
Kind of.. but for example Sony use almost the same body for their entry (a7) and advance (a9) cameras.. they change just a few things but the main change is inside, not really outside.. But yes, more features and controls means more space most of the time.

Last edited by kooks; 01-21-2019 at 04:01 PM.
01-21-2019, 12:07 PM - 5 Likes   #806
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,440
QuoteOriginally posted by kooks Quote
Kind of.. but for example Sony use almost the same body for their entry (a7) and advance (a9) cameras.. they chance just a few things but the main change is inside, not really outside.. But yes, more features and controls means more space most of the time.
Especially with the Pentax approach of putting so much control literally, physically, at our fingertips, rather than burying power somewhere in the menu system.
01-21-2019, 08:04 PM - 1 Like   #807
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,945
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I was responding to comments about sensor size.
My post was about sensor size as well, arguing that sensor size is not the dominant factor for the size of a lens.

Even for a very small sensor, you can decide to collect a lot of light (-> large lens) or not so much light (-> smaller lens). As you agreed, the f/1.9 lens for the Q collects only ~1/20 of the light of an FF f/1.9 lens and that's the reason why it's front element can be so much smaller.

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
My light meter asks for f-stop, plus ASA, to determine shutter speed; even when this light meter was constructed, exposure depended on the three "triangle" components, not on whether I was using medium format, 35mm, or even Minox film.
That's because your light meter aims for a specific "photons per mm^2" exposure. The latter doesn't depend on the sensor size.

The larger the sensor, though, the more photons need to be gathered by the lens in order to maintain the same "photons per mm^2" figure. That's why an FF f/1.9 lens needs to collect 20 times more light than a f/1.9 lens for the Q. Note, however, that the DOF and noise levels will be very different for images shot with the same exposure parameters, in other words, the FF lens at f/1.9 doesn't just serve a bigger sensor, it actually creates a different image when used with the same parameters (the ones your light meter tells you).

The above makes it tempting to attribute "shallow DOF" with larger sensor size, but in reality, it comes from using "faster" lenses (as f/1.9 in "FF currency" is much "faster" than f/1.9 in "Q currency").

In a nutshell, light meters are designed to create the same exposure across formats, not to create the same images across formats (they'll differ in DOF and noise).

Again, I don't think this is the right thread to discuss such matters with the necessary detail in explanation but I just wanted to clarify why my earlier statements stand.
01-21-2019, 08:19 PM - 1 Like   #808
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,440
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The larger the sensor, though, the more photons need to be gathered by the lens in order to maintain the same "photons per mm^2" figure. That's why an FF f/1.9 lens needs to collect 20 times more light than a f/1.9 lens for the Q. Note, however, that the DOF and noise levels will be very different for images shot with the same exposure parameters, in other words, the FF lens at f/1.9 doesn't just serve a bigger sensor, it actually creates a different image when used with the same parameters (the ones your light meter tells you).

The above makes it tempting to attribute "shallow DOF" with larger sensor size, but in reality, it comes from using "faster" lenses (as f/1.9 in "FF currency" is much "faster" than f/1.9 in "Q currency").

In a nutshell, light meters are designed to create the same exposure across formats, not to create the same images across formats (they'll differ in DOF and noise).

Again, I don't think this is the right thread to discuss such matters with the necessary detail in explanation but I just wanted to clarify why my earlier statements stand.
These are all sensor issues, not lens issues.
No change occurs in my K-mount lens when I move it from my Super Program to my KP to my Q-7.
01-21-2019, 09:04 PM - 1 Like   #809
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,440
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
My post was about sensor size as well, arguing that sensor size is not the dominant factor for the size of a lens.
Of course sensor size is a dominant factor for the size of a lens; IQ is another dominant factor.
A smaller sensor requires a smaller column of light which enables the lens to use less glass.


In the photo below, the two lenses give nearly the same view when the silver lens is mounted on my Q-7 and the black lens is mounted on my K-30,
but the silver lens is smaller even though it lets in more light per unit area of sensor and contains in-lens AF and aperture 'motors' while the black lens is all manual.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by reh321; 01-21-2019 at 09:32 PM.
01-22-2019, 04:16 AM - 2 Likes   #810
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,121
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
These are all sensor issues, not lens issues.
No change occurs in my K-mount lens when I move it from my Super Program to my KP to my Q-7.
We have had long discussions on the forum about "equivalency." Which is to say that if you want to take a photo with one size sensor the is exactly the same as one another size you have to change everything. So, a shot taken at iso 100, 135mm, 1/200 second and f2.8 on APS-C is roughly equivalent to a shot taken at iso 200, f4, 1/200 second and 200mm on full frame. Noise and dynamic range and depth of field should all be the same. The thing is that it is hard to get fast enough lenses on smaller format to "match" the equivalent speeds of lenses on full frame.

Clearly most people don't need maximal dynamic range and low noise and at lower isos, smaller sensors do quite well. Just as clearly, it is assumed that technology on the larger sensor is the same as that on the smaller sensor, but that isn't always the case and if you are comparing, say, a Canon 5D MK III to a KP, the KP will actually do better than you would expect based on these formula.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
body, camera, cameras, company, competition, development, frame, gr, iii, ilc, interview, kit, lens, lenses, market, mf, model, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, product, products, ricoh, roadmap, sense, tamron, theta, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 100 YEARS anniversary 2019! SunnyG. Pentax DSLR Discussion 64 02-07-2019 10:37 PM
Ricoh Imaging Will Not Be Exhibiting At WPPI 2019 Conference & Expo Kelvin 5500 Photographic Industry and Professionals 15 12-28-2018 11:05 PM
Nippon Camera Article about FA lenses revdocjim Pentax Medium Format 10 06-10-2014 01:59 PM
Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) Micro-Nikkor Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm vs. SMC Pentax-M 1:1.7 50mm carpents Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 06-23-2007 07:22 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top